The Unified Government Commission is scheduled to consider an increase in stormwater fees at its Thursday, Jan. 30, meeting.
The UG Commission meeting will begin at 7 p.m. Jan. 30 in the Commission Chambers, City Hall, lobby level, 701 N. 7th St., Kansas City, Kansas.
A compromise proposal on stormwater fees will be presented at the meeting, with a vote proposed.
The proposed fee structure has gone through several changes during discussions in the past year, with businesses and individuals attending meetings and providing their comments on the plans. Some businesses in the past stated that the increases in past proposals were too steep and needed to be more gradually phased in.
Commissioners at a Jan. 9 UG meeting expressed concerns about residents, businesses, churches and properties throughout Kansas City, Kansas, that would be affected by changes to the stormwater fees. Some commissioners mentioned they were concerned about churches and nonprofits specifically.
UG officials explained at a Jan. 9 UG meeting that there is about $141 million in stormwater work that needs to be done in Kansas City, Kansas, and they will never get caught up with the work if the stormwater fee remains at its current $4.50 a month per residence or property. That fee generates about $3.4 million a year.
According to UG information, these stormwater projects would reduce the risk of frequent flooding, as well as reducing pollution in the creeks and rivers.
UG officials also said that surrounding communities such as Lawrence, Overland Park and Topeka have been considering stormwater rate increases, and that Topeka has increased its rate for 2021.
A flat fee, such as the present $4.50 stormwater fee in Kansas City, Kansas, is not fair and equitable, and it isn’t fair for a small home to pay the same rate as a big-box retail store, nor is it fair for a small business to pay as much as a business that owns a lot of property, according to the officials.
The options being considered would charge properties more if they have a larger amount of hard surfaces, such as pavement, buildings and driveways.
At the Jan. 9 meeting, commissioners heard a presentation on options for the stormwater rate. The first was an individually calculated monthly charge, with $4.50 as a minimum. The rate would increase according to the number of square feet in the property. UG officials said most households would stay at the $4.50 a month rate under the first option.
Seventy percent of parcels would not change the $4.50 fee in 2021 under the first option, but it gradually increases, so that 58 percent would not change in 2022, and 43 percent not change in 2023. Essentially, the fees would go up.
A large home, with 7,200 square feet and an impervious area (pavements, buildings, driveways) of 5,105 square feet, would pay $6.84 per month under the first option in 2021, according to UG estimates.
A commercial property of 32,250 square feet, with an impervious area of 20,250 square feet, would pay $27.14 per month under the first option in 2021, according to UG information.
The second option was a rate structure with 13 tiers.
The second option starts with square footage of 0 to 2,000 at a $4.50 rate in 2021. It increases to $4.84 per month for 2,001 to 4,000 square feet; $6.15 for 4,001 to 6,000 square feet; and on up. Properties with 30,001 to 60,000 square feet would pay $53.29 a month in 2021, and properties with 1,000,001 to 5,500,000 square feet would pay $1,844.67 a square foot in 2021.
Those of 5,500,001 square feet and above would pay $5,803.83 per month in 2021, under the second option.
The UG staff did a comparison of the two options at the Jan. 9 meeting, and recommended the second option as the most well-rounded and best option, according to Jeff Fisher, UG director of public works.
The UG agenda for Jan. 30 also contains a third option, with three tiers. The tier for 0 to 10,000 square feet would be $5 a month; for 10,000 to 100,000 square feet would be $38.21 a month; and for 100,000 square feet and greater, $363.59 a month, in 2021. The fees would increase in future years.
Residents speak at public hearing
At the Jan. 9 Commission meeting, during a public hearing on the stormwater fees, the commission heard from David Knetter, whose family has farms in the western part of Wyandotte County.
When he asked the UG about the amount of the fee for the farm that his 94-year-old mother lives on, he was told it would be nearly $500 a month after the first couple of years, he said.
“Needless to say, I was outraged,” Knetter said.
Proposed rate structures were changing, and a later request came back with an estimate of just over $50 a month. It still seemed like too much to pay for managing stormwater, he told the commission. He added that he already manages runoff on his land, purchasing drainage pipes or culverts for it and maintaining it.
“I’m not Walmart,” he said. “I’m just some guy with a gravel driveway.”
Daniel Silva, Kansas City, Kansas, Area Chamber of Commerce president, said the chamber supported a solution that would equably allocate the increased financial obligations across all property types.
He also supported looking at additional sources of funding, including outside funding streams to offset some of the costs. He also asked about what the credit program with this plan would look like. UG staff has discussed a program where residents and businesses could get some credit for managing stormwater on their property.
Mary Collins, a resident, said the most equitable way would be through a flat rate fee, which was the first option, applied to all properties regardless of their size or location.
She said she believes a tiered system forces those at the lower end of the tier to subsidize those at the higher end.
Greg Kindle, president of the Wyandotte Economic Development Council, said at the Jan. 9 meeting, “My caution is not to swing the cost pendulum so far on the commercial side that we slow or halt continued economic development. It is a balancing act with no easy answer. Our hope is that you will keep in mind that there is a limit to how much we can or should ask from any one group. Whatever plan you determine is the right one, we encourage you to make sure that everybody can understand how their bill is being determined.”
Elnora Tellis-Jefferson, a resident, was concerned about the fees being placed on individuals. She also asked if the stormwater fee increased to a post-secondary institution here, would the institution get a new source of funding or would it just pass the fee on to residents through a mill levy or to students with tuition increases.
Broderick Crawford, a resident, and the president of the NBC Community Development Corp., which is under the New Bethel Church, said on Jan. 9 that the number of residents who participated in community engagement sessions was not very high, considering there were 65,000 households affected.
He said he was opposed to the second option because it seemed to skew the benefit to business owners.
“I think we really need to look at how we are burdening our taxpayers in this county with the highest tax burden in our area with additional fees,” Crawford said.
Rachel Jefferson, a resident and the executive director of the Historic Northeast-Midtown Association, said on Jan. 9, also was opposed to the second option. She said most of the people attending community meetings were owners of large impervious surface areas.
“I think we need to be thinking about how we want to envision our future here, our environmental future, environmental health and are we going to keep pushing the burden onto our residents that rightfully should be on people who are making money from our residents in this community,” Jefferson said. Also, she doubted whether a stormwater fee would deter businesses from coming to the community.
UG commissioners discuss topic
In answer to a question from Commissioner Gayle Townsend on Jan. 9, UG staff members said that someone who has a farm could possibly benefit from a credit program where there is a percentage taken off for a ratio of 30 to 1 green surface to hard surface, for example.
Commissioner Mike Kane asked about the number of people attending the community meetings, and was told about 120 people attended the second round of meetings out of the more than 160,000 people who live in the county. He also asked about the school districts and colleges and how they will come up with the increased stormwater fees.
“I’m extremely frustrated by this because we didn’t do it the way we should and we’re not anywhere close, in my mind, where we can pull the trigger on something that we don’t know is going to work or not,” Commissioner Kane said at the Jan. 9 meeting.
Commissioner Melissa Bynum said she had serious concerns for the burden that both the first and second options place on churches, schools and nonprofit entities.
She also asked who would pay this stormwater fee, a renter or a property owner. UG staff members said the intent was for the property owner to pay it, but it would be billed through the individual’s BPU bill. That utility bill could go to some renters.
“So when we have a situation where we’re going to put this on the utility bill and that bill is being paid by a commercial property renter, then I guess they can just duke it out basically,” Commissioner Bynum said.
She also asked about the ways the UG could calculate the impervious area of property for each parcel and make it available to the property owners so they know what their bills would be. She said community engagement will be important for this stormwater fee.
Commissioner Harold Johnson, who is the pastor of a church, asked, “If I were the pastor of a church that had a large lot, how would I communicate to them what my fee would be? Would we be saying, for instance, let’s just say we fell into the third column around the 200 – so you see Option 1 would be $268 and Option 2 would be $189. How would I communicate to that person?”
The stormwater fees for that church example could go from $4.50 a month to $189.81 a month under one of these options. Commissioner Johnson said it was important to communicate with residents so they know exactly what their fees would be under a stormwater increase.
“If I had a large church property, I think I might like the $11.46 in 2021 versus the $189.81. It’s just a thought on that,” Commissioner Johnson said.
Commissioner Brian McKiernan said he thought the first option was the most equitable. He said the fee increases in one proposal were too steep and too fast.
“I think our first couple of years are actually pretty manageable, at least in what I’ve looked at so far, but then when they start to almost exponentially rise over the next four to eight years, I feel like the burden ramps up and at that point it’s going to start to become unbearable,” Commissioner McKiernan said.
Commissioner Tom Burroughs asked about financial details such as whether the credit program had been factored into the overall revenues that the fees will produce. UG staff said they were.
Commissioner Burroughs also pointed out that since the billing will be handled through the BPU bills, he would imagine that customers would direct a lot of feedback to the utility and not necessarily to the UG.
He also asked what would happen if the UG did not increase the fees. The UG staff stated that the stormwater problems would get more expensive, property values would be affected, and residents and businesses would be frustrated.
Mayor David Alvey on Jan. 9 stated that the UG still has a bill due for the repair of the wingwall at Turkey Creek, which was collapsing. The UG also was doing repairs for the Argentine pump station.
“I think it’s important for us to understand that no one wants to pay more for anything; that’s a fundamental. We’re always looking to get more for less. That’s a fundamental. It’s also a fundamental that the longer you delay maintenance on important infrastructure, the worse it becomes, the more expensive it becomes, the more damage it does, the more it causes damage to the investment,” Mayor Alvey said at the Jan. 9 meeting.
In the past 60 to 70 years in Kansas City, Kansas, there has been a failure to invest in the community, he said. When that happens, there is additional pressure put on the infrastructure and property values, he said. When people trying to decide whether to build a business or home here find neighborhoods that have been neglected, they find another place to go, he added.
“I think we have to understand that if we don’t take steps and we don’t do it quickly, we’re simply going to continue to fall behind,” Mayor Alvey said on Jan. 9. “These things have to be done and we have to find the spirit within our community to understand that if we want this community to grow and to be the kind of place that we’re proud to bring people into and for our children to come up to and to raise their families here, we’ve got to stand up and say we know where this can be in 10 years, 15 years, 20 years and we know there’s going to be some sacrifices and we’re willing to make those sacrifices because it’s important.”
The UG agenda for Jan. 30 is online at https://wycokck.civicclerk.com/web/UserControls/DocPreview.aspx?p=1&aoid=1586.
Option 1 is online at
https://www.wycokck.org/WycoKCK/media/Public-Works/Stormwater%20Runoff%20Management/Documents/Stormwater-FAQ-Option-1.pdf
Option 2 is online at
https://www.wycokck.org/WycoKCK/media/Public-Works/Stormwater%20Runoff%20Management/Documents/Stormwater-FAQ_Option-2_10-30-2019.pdf
A video of the Jan. 9 UG meeting is online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYFDxAHzZ3Q
To see a previous story about the stormwater fees, visit https://wyandotteonline.com/four-open-houses-planned-on-changes-to-stormwater-fees-in-kck/
An opinion column from last August on the issue is at https://wyandotteonline.com/storm-water-fees-must-be-reasonable/.